September 29, 2005

Taking one for the team?: "It was never mine or the team's intention to humiliate or ostracize any member of our team brotherhood," said a McGill University football player who has been suspended indefinitely after a freshman was forced onto his hands and knees with a dog toy in his mouth while being prodded anally with a broom handle. Bonus points: McGill's chancellor's name -- Dick Pound.

Yeah really, I guess initiation means never having to say your are sorry...really sorry anyway. Plus, I'm sure the Hallmark cards that say "sorry about the anal rape with a broomstick" are pretty hard to find. I'm going to take a wild guess and say: bad recruiting year next year.

So they didn't intend on humiliating or ostracizing anyone? It just happened by accident, that broom handle being stuck in his ass? Is it a bonding experience to be tortured in front of your supposed teamates? And the fallout is one guy's been suspended from the team? How about some damned criminal charges being brought against them? yerfatma, Dick Swett is easily the worst name in politics ever. Why in the hell he didn't go by Rich or Richard is beyond me and I'd love to ask his parents what they were thinking when they named him Richard?

Also - what's with the homosexual sadism and team sports? How come everytime there's a hazing ritual that gets out of hand it always seems to involve sexual abuse? I think the answers to this are obvious, but it doesn't mean the questions aren't interesting. Hey, Dick Pound is a cool guy - also heads the World Doping Authority and was a few votes away from being in Rogge's position on the IOC. Dick Swett on the other hand...

Hell, I thought doing grass drills til I puked was bad enough. What ever happened to the good 'ol days when the only real humiliation to be endured was when you missed a tackle on a running back and had the coach and rest of the team up your ass (figuratively speaking, of course)?

Hazing rituals aren't exactly designed to stay in bounds. When hazing takes place, by default, it's over the line -- and once you're over the line, how are you gonna know what's "too far"? You've already gone too far. My main reaction to the story is that I absolutely hate bogus non-apologies that boil down to, "I'm sorry I got caught."

Yeah, wearing his number, after they stuck a broomstick in his ass. Thanks guys...thanks a lot. I think the team should have to play all their home games on the yard at Oswald State Penitentiary, then shower with Adabesi and Schillinger.

lil_brown_bat, when you're about to shove a sawed off broom handle in your "teammate's" ass that's a pretty indication that you've gone more than a little bit overboard in your hazing. I would hope that all the players involved would not only be suspended from the team but expelled from the school altogether. The message their non-discipline sends is "Don't get caught" and that's just sick and wrong. I bet my pal who's a McGill alum is furious right now. Heck, the rest of the school's students should demand they be expelled. And until they do, I'm going to call McGill University, Broomstick U.

Yeah, wearing his number, after they stuck a broomstick in his ass. Thanks guys...thanks a lot. Uh, it's worse than that, TBH. The number worn by some of the team members wasn't the victim's, but that of the perp who got suspended, viz.: According to reports, several players sported 55, Mr. Poston's jersey number, in support of their suspended teammate. fenriq: lil_brown_bat, when you're about to shove a sawed off broom handle in your "teammate's" ass that's a pretty indication that you've gone more than a little bit overboard in your hazing. Correction: when you're hazing, you've gone too far. Some of it may be more out there than others, but all hazing is out of bounds; there is no such thing as "in-bounds hazing", by definition.

Lets face it -. You had some stupid people doing a stupid thing to somebody who couldnt defend himself. I am just speechless when I hear about stuff like this. The whole story from from tha actuall hazing to the apology to the cute little name jokes being displayed here---It makes me really sad that we can disrespect another human in such a way. This behavior cant be "explaned" away or rationalized--its plain evil......

Has anyone here subjected themselves to hazing that was unmistakeably sexual in nature? I was allegic to Greeks in college -- I pledged F.U. (student newspaper) -- and I can't imagine wanting to be in a group bad enough to subject myself to the Deliverance treatment.

Has anyone here subjected themselves to hazing that was unmistakeably sexual in nature? You mean having guys drop their pants and do "the penis dance" around the hazee, who is forced to wear a safety helmet and endure repeated blows to the head? Because if the answer's no, then I guess not.

While the whole thing is a little tasteless I have seen it reported in some places that he was sodomized but in his own words (given a pseudonym Nathan and the info passed to a McGill student paper through an intermediary) the complaint's account was:

"All the rookies were gathered outside Bishop Mountain Hall. They told us to take off our shirts and partner up and hold hands. They told us to skip and sing while we traveled to the stadium. They were calling us ‘pansies, queers, and fairies. ” said the document. Then the rookies were told to stand in front of the team and cover their faces, the document stated. “The veterans in the stands threw pilates balls and other sports balls at us. One of the balls chipped my tooth. I said I chipped my tooth. Poston said, ‘all my teeth are fake, get used to it’. We were told to take our pants off. I replied no. [Linebacker] Jean-Nicolas Carriere then took me to the back of the squash court and held a penny against the wall and [told me to] hold it with my nose…. I felt pilates balls hit the wall on either side of me.” After that, the document said, Nathan acquiesced to the demand to drop his pants, and was then placed in a kneeling position by an unidentified team member. “[Quarterback] Matt Connell said, ‘I forgot about this,’ and shoved a rope chew-toy in my mouth and told me to bite it. Then they poked each cheek of my buttocks as the audience counted down and then poked the stick between my cheeks and hit my anus. I got up, spat on the floor, threw the chew toy at the crowd, and left.”

Sure, this was a pretty tasteless act. But, for my money, this WASN'T much like the Amadou Diallo case. I'd heard broomsitck "touched" or "hit" the offending part. But people read broomstick + ass = sodomy. You need pentration in there someplace. While this whole hazing thing is incredibly stupid and deplorable, I am open to the possibility that all the other rookies were treated in the same way (this year, last year, throughout the tenure of Dr Broom) and they took it in the "spirit" (warped though it might be) it was intended. But there have to be better ways of showing team spirit. It reminds me, somewhat, of the scene in Old School (I think it was) with the pledges blindfolded on the roof with a brick (or something) tied to their member told that the stringed attached to the brick was just long enough to reach the ground. Psychological trauma sort of thing, but nothing really meant by it. This hazing thing sounds like it has grown to get way way out of hand.

gspm, not to pick nits (particularly as the facts of the case are in dispute), but "sodomy" in law* usually refers to "any naughty sexual act that the powers that be don't approve of", not just anal penetration. *USA law, that is -- I dunno if Canadian law, which is what's relevant in this case, has that same definition.

I think at the point a broomstick hits my anus, whether it goes in or not and whether I'm wearing skivvies or not, I'm getting up and leaving. I suspect I'd also be tracking down a few of my teammates later with a tire iron.

lbb - I must admit to not being clear on the dividing line of when something becomes sodomy. That said, my impression was that many people were elevating this distasteful act into a broom handle getting shoved two feet* up the guy's ass when I don't think that a closer look at the details supports that interpretation. so maybe by the letter of the law it could be sodomy. * figuratively of course, penetration is at least an assumption on the part of many people, I think wfrazejr - I don't disagree, I certainly don't blame the guy for getting upset about it. i was hoping to add a bit more to the "facts" (in dispute) of the discussion without coming across as saying that the football players are good old boys that should be left alone.

lil brown bat you are at it again. Thank you for your legal definition of sodomy (those of us with real legal training appreciate it.) This incident is absolutely disgusting. Since when does team bonding require committing a deviate sexual act. I think that making those football players registered sex offenders would probably make a few people think twice.

mcstan, what exactly are you getting all snippy about? Your "real legal training", whatever that may be, doesn't give you some kind of monopoly on saying anything about the law -- thank god. I don't have any "real astronomy training", either, but that lack of credentials doesn't change the truth of the statement when I say that the earth revolves around the sun, now does it?

I personally think the only "hazing" that should be allowed is the ones they do to rookies in MLB. Make them dress up in the silliest outfits possible and wear them on the airplane ride to the next game. It's funny, it's harmless and it makes for a great photo-op for the newspapers.

lil brown bat, I'm simply pointing out that you talk alot about what you don't know. In every jurisdiction I have ever seen there is a real and articulable definition for sodomy. It is not "any naughty sexual act that the powers that be don't approve of", not just anal penetration. If you have the time, look it up. However, I do agree with you on this one: that hazing is ALWAYS over the line. P.S. The type of legal training that I have is the real kind that costs a lot of money. Thank you for your words of encouragement though

The type of legal training that I have is the real kind that costs a lot of money. You were formally charged with sodomy? That DOES cost a lot of money. Just a guess - 'cause if you went to Law school, why not say so?

Sorry I don't break the law, I help enforce it. My training is job and classroom related. However, I would guess with a name like Weedy McSmokey that you are life of the party. Garfield, thank you for the recognition. At least someone pays attention to what is said on this thing.

bperk, I have no idea why this sodomy thread is now going so far, but yes you are correct. Sodomy has been found unconsitutional in most states. However, if you read those cases, most of them apply to consensual acts between homosexual couples. It is the fact that the law is being applied solely against homosexuals and not equally against heterosexuals that makes the law unconstitutional. The actual acts that constitute sodomy are still very much illegal in cases involving children and unwilling participants. (Which in the original article you can make a good case that he was an unwilling participant) If he was an unwilling participant it would be something like forcible sodomy or something along those lines. But as a practical matter the old time sodomy laws are extinct. Thank you for bringing this discussion back to the issue and getting us away from fighting each other.

I personally think the only "hazing" that should be allowed is the ones they do to rookies in MLB. "One time in Chicago they got [Kevin] Mitchell drunk and took him to a statue and made him paint the testicles of the horse Met blue and orange." (circa 1986) I've heard that one in connection with a number of names, when they were rookies, and with the horses balls getting painted the team colors by the rookie...but I couldn't find a picture of the statue or any other accounts of it though. Apparently some statue on the way to Wrigley? As far as the constitutionality of sodomy, you are talking consensual sodomy, not sexual assault with a broomstick...I'm not sure sodomy was the correct description, legally, of the initiation. Its more like one of the degrees of sexual assault. (basically what mcstan 13 stated). The kid may have went along with some of it, but coercion counts too. I don't think it sounded like he gave knowing consent to them playing broomball with his anus (that is how I read it anyway).

Make them dress up in the silliest outfits possible and wear them on the airplane ride to the next game. It's funny, it's harmless and it makes for a great photo-op for the newspapers. Plus, stops bullets. It's win win, really.

It is the fact that the law is being applied solely against homosexuals and not equally against heterosexuals that makes the law unconstitutional. That was Sandra Day's view, but the decision to make such statues unconstitutional by the majority was a Due Process argument -- the right to privacy.

mcstan: lil brown bat, I'm simply pointing out that you talk alot about what you don't know. In every jurisdiction I have ever seen there is a real and articulable definition for sodomy. It is not "any naughty sexual act that the powers that be don't approve of", not just anal penetration. If you have the time, look it up. My bad for not printing out in a SpoFi thread the completely irrelevant definition of sodomy in every one of the 50 states (irrelevant because, as I pointed out, the incident in question took place in Canada). Mea maxima culpa. On the other hand, I never wrote anything that suggests that "real and articulable definition[s] of sodomy" don't exist. My point, which you sailed right past in your eagerness to castigate my lack of real legal training that costs lots of money, is that these "real and articulable definition[s]" differ from place to place; hence, my use of the phrase "any naughty sexual act that the powers that be don't approve of". Clearly, when some of these laws were created, the people doing the creating thought that anything but missionary-position sex between a married man and woman was horrible and deviant, hence "sodomy". Other laws define "sodomy" in other ways. I think you will agree that that's the truth, no?

For example, in Minnesota, prior to being declared unconstitutional: "Sodomy" means carnally knowing any person by the anus or by or with the mouth." Another section of that same statute adds (or added): "Consensual acts. Whoever, in cases not coming within the provisions of sections 609.342 or 609.344 [Crim. Sex violations], voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both." Any sexual contact without consent would come under the sections that are Criminal Sexual Conduct violations (rape, etc.) That is just an example, but probably most codes/jurisdictions are that way. Its not like anyone is saying this thing in Quebec is not a punishable criminal offense though right? I think you will agree that that's the truth, no? Correct. Although I think I'm still going to have to say I disapprove of some of those deviant sex offenses...like bestiality and necrophilia...and probably always will. For obvious reasons.

Make them dress up in the silliest outfits possible and wear them on the airplane ride to the next game. It's funny, it's harmless and it makes for a great photo-op for the newspapers. Plus, stops bullets. It's win win, really. I was waiting for this, didn't something else happen to him this year also. I can't remember.